Lawsuit Claims Software Shouldn't Be Copyrighted

from the this-ought-to-be-fun dept

Just as Europe (hopefully) decides to squash any last hope for allowing software patents in the EU, well-known intellectual property reform advocate Greg Aharonian is trying to convince the courts that software should only be patentable — and not copyrightable. His argument is, basically, that a copyright on software is too restrictive, without clearly stating what the rules are for making use of the copyrighted material. As the article explains, “software copyright laws violate the right to due process enshrined in the U.S. Constitution because they do not provide clear boundaries for appropriate use. That means industry players and courts do not have a clear idea of the rules.” While it’s an intriguing idea, it seems like a very shaky legal argument, and not one that many judges are going to buy. It may draw some attention to the issue of intellectual property reform — but will probably strike too many as “too far out there” to take seriously. You can almost hear the disbelief coming from folks at the BSA responding to the lawsuit, astounded that anyone would take this line of reasoning against software copyrights.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Lawsuit Claims Software Shouldn't Be Copyrighted”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Steve Mueller (user link) says:

Software Copyrights

Actually, it does make some sense. Software usually does something, which makes it more like an invention, and therefore patentable, than an artistic or journalistic work, which would be copyrightable.

I don’t have a problem with software patents per se. However, I feel that people trying to enforce the patents should actually be the inventor and/or actually have created or be actively creating something that uses the items expressed in the patent. That would prevent patent hoarders from buying patents just to slap lawsuits on people they think might be violating them. The actual inventor, being the creative person, may get a waiver on actually having to have used the invention.

I would also raise the bar on the “non-obvious” part of patents. Online analogs of real-world items (for example, shopping carts) would not be patentable.

Steve Mueller (user link) says:

Software Copyrights

I want to be clear on one thing. I still think software copyrights make sense. Patents are for non-obvious inventions, but copyrights can apply to obvious things.

For example, a new spreadsheet is not likely to be patentable, but I should be able to get a copyright on the source code. I don’t think people should be able to just take my source code and use it as they like unless that’s my decision.

Keeping the ability to copyright software will help prevent everything from becoming de facto open source.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...